Single storey rear extension
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 1 August 2023 by Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu BSc MSc MRTPI MIEMA
CEnv
Decision by Chris Forrett BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 27 September 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/23/3322366
Denby, 14 Pines Road, Bickley, Bromley BR1 2AA
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr V Goloshivsky against the decision of Council of the London
Borough of Bromley.
• The application Ref DC/22/02928/FULL6, dated 21 July 2022, was refused by notice
dated 28 April 2023.
• The development proposed is a single storey rear extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey
rear extension at Denby, 14 Pines Road, Bickley, Bromley BR1 2AA, in
accordance with the terms of the application DC/22/02928/FULL6 dated 21 July
2022 subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision.
2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the
development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing
building.
3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved plans numbered: 02_RevA ,03_RevA, 03_RevB, 05_RevB,
06_RevB, 07_RevB, 16_RevB, 17_RevB and 18_RevB.
Appeal Procedure
2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose
recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard
before deciding the appeal.
Application for costs
3. An application for costs was made by Mr V Goloshivsky against the Council of
the London Borough of Bromley. The application is the subject of a separate
decision.
Main Issues
4. The appeal site is located within the Bickley Park Conservation Area (the ‘CA’).
The main issues are whether the development would preserve or enhance the
Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/23/3322366
2
character or appearance of the CA; and the effect of the development upon the
living conditions of the occupants of “Castleford”, 14a Pines Road with regard
to outlook.
Reasons for the Recommendation
Character of the CA
5. Denby is a modern two storey detached house located on a corner plot on the
east side of Pines Road to the north of its junction with Woodlands Road. The
street scene is characterised by large detached two storey buildings of varying
size and design which are set back from the road. Properties on the street
have rear gardens of varying depth, with the appeal property and 14a
“Castleford” having similar while nos. 16, 16a and 18 all appear to have
greater distances between the rear of the respective properties and their rear
boundaries and are also sited further back than the appeal property. As
observed at the site visit 16 Pines Road has a rear extension which protrudes
beyond the rear wall of other properties. As such, I consider that there is not a
strongly defined building line at the rear.
6. The proposed single storey rear extension would have a flat roof and would
project 4 metres from the rear wall of the existing property at its closest point
to Castleford. From the Council officers report, it would have a width of 9.1
metres and a height of 3.25 metres. Given the overall size and height of the
extension, it would represent a subservient addition to the host dwelling.
7. By virtue of the site being a corner plot, the appeal site also benefits from a
substantial garden space to the side which would provide significant separation
distance from the southern flank boundary. There would also be a separation
distance from the rear boundary of approximately 8.3 metres. Consequently,
the proposal would not result in an overdevelopment of the site.
8. Turning to the design aspects of the proposal, its flat roof would not reflect that
of the host dwelling. That said, given the modern nature of the host dwelling
and the siting of the proposal to the rear, I consider that this is not harmful to
the overall character of the host dwelling, the wider area or the CA.
9. For the above reasons the proposal would therefore complement the host
property and would not appear out of character with surrounding development.
It would also preserve the character of the CA and would accord with the
National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies 6, 37 and 41 of the London
Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 (the ‘LP’). Amongst other matters, these
policies and the overarching aims of the National Planning Policy Framework
seek to ensure that proposals within or affecting a Conservation Area are
designed to preserve or enhance its special character and appearance as well
as respecting or complementing the layout, scale, form and materials of
existing buildings and spaces.
Living conditions
10. The proposed extension would project 4 metres from the existing rear wall. It
would be set in from the edge of the northern elevation of the host dwelling by
around 1 metre.
11. The submitted plans indicate a distance of around 3.65 metres between the
appeal property and Castleford, and the proposed extension would also be set
Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/23/3322366
3
in a further metre from the side elevation. The proposed plans also indicate the
45-degree line from the ground floor rear doors of Castleford, and no part of
the proposal would be within the 45-degree line from these rear openings.
12. Taking these factors into account, together with the size and height of the
proposal, it would not give rise to an unacceptable outlook for the occupants of
the adjoining property, Castleford.
13. For the above reasons the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the
occupiers of Castleford and would accord with Policy 37 of the LP which
amongst other matters seeks to ensure that proposals respect the amenity of
the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Other Matters
14. I Have also had regard to the other concerns raised in respect of potential loss
of daylight and sunlight to Castleford. However, given the size and height of
the proposal, I consider that any loss of such light would not be sufficient to
warrant the withholding of planning permission for the development before me.
Conditions
15. Other than the statutory condition relating to the commencement of work it is
necessary, in the interests of clarity, to attach a condition to ensure that the
development is constructed in accordance with the plans submitted with the
application. In the interests of the visual amenity, a condition is necessary to
ensure that the external materials of the development match those used in the
existing building.
16. The Planning Officer’s Report includes a condition that there should be no
balcony on the flat roof. However, I consider that the use of the roof as a
balcony is unlikely as the proposal includes large rooflights which would make
this type of use impractical. Furthermore, the submitted drawings do not show
any access to the flat roof from the master bedroom. In summary, I consider
that this condition is unnecessary.
Conclusion and Recommendation
17. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised,
I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.
Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu
APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER
Inspector’s Decision
18. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s
recommendation and on that basis the appeal is allowed.
Chris Forrett
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 1 August 2023 by Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu BSc MSc MRTPI MIEMA
CEnv
Decision by Chris Forrett BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 27 September 2023
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/23/3322366
Denby, 14 Pines Road, Bickley, Bromley BR1 2AA
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr V Goloshivsky for a full award of costs against the Council
of the London Borough of Bromley.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a single storey rear
extension.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is partially allowed in the terms set out
below.
Appeal Procedure
2. A representative of the Inspector has set out the recommendation below, to
which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the application.
Reasons for the Recommendation
3. Government guidance on the award of costs is set out in the Planning Practice
Guidance (PPG). Paragraph 030 of that guidance notes that irrespective of the
outcome of the appeal, a party may have costs awarded against them in
relation to appeal proceedings if they have behaved unreasonably and that
behaviour has led another party to incur unnecessary expense. Those two
matters are pre-requisites for an award; if there has been no unreasonable
behaviour and no wasted expense an award will not be justified.
4. The PPG provides examples of unreasonable behaviour by local planning
authorities. This includes procedural matters such as providing information that
is shown to be inaccurate or manifestly untrue and substantive matters such as
vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact which
are unsupported by any objective analysis.
5. In summary, the applicant asserts that the Council acted unreasonably by
going against officer advice to approve the application and that their decision
does not stand up to scrutiny on the planning merits of the case. There was
very limited objection to the proposal at the application stage and these were
not supported by either the planning officer or the heritage officer. The
committee, by looking at google maps decided the proposal breached the
historic rear building line and it is considered that the Committee acted
unreasonably in this matter.
Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/23/3322366
2
6. No response was received from the Council with regard to the costs application.
7. I have noted the officer recommendation to approve the application. However,
this is not the ultimate decision of the Council. The Committee were quite
entitled to reach an alternative conclusion against the advice of officers and
were within their rights to refuse the application. As such, they have not acted
unreasonably by doing so. However, the key issue is whether the Council have
provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their reason for refusal.
8. The reason for refusal set out by the Council is based on overdevelopment of
the site and an oppressive outlook from the adjacent property, together with
its impact on the Conservation Area.
9. The reason for refusal relates to matters of where there will clearly be an
aspect of planning judgement. I consider that in reaching its decision on the
character and appearance issue the Council took account of the character of
the site, its surroundings and the context in which the proposal would be seen
even if this was done remotely relying on satellite imagery. Whilst in my
decision I found in favour of the applicant on this issue, I find that there is
sufficient evidence that the Council considered this matter to the extent that no
unreasonable behaviour occurred on this issue.
10. In terms of the living conditions aspect, the Council has produced very little
evidence to support their stance and have relied on little more than an
assertion that the development has the potential to result in oppressive outlook
for occupants of the neighbouring property.
11. In respect of this living conditions matters, I find that the Council have not
provided sufficient evidence to substantiate this aspect of their reason for
refusal. Furthermore, it appears to me that having regard to the provisions of
the development plan, national planning policy and other material
considerations, the proposed development should reasonably have been
permitted. The refusal of planning permission on this ground therefore
constituted unreasonable behaviour contrary to the guidance in the National
Planning Policy Framework and the PPG and the appellant has been faced with
the unnecessary additional expense of dealing with matter in their appeal
submission.
Conclusion and Recommendation
12. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or
wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has been demonstrated in relation to
living conditions matter and therefore a partial award of costs is justified.
Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu
APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER
Inspector’s Decision
13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s
recommendation, and on that basis, I too concur that the application for an
award of costs is partially awarded.
Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/23/3322366
3
Costs Order
14. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act
1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended,
and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Council of the London Borough of Bromley shall pay to Mr V Goloshivsky, the
costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision;
limited to those costs incurred in contesting the overbearing outlook issue,
such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.
15. The applicant is now invited to submit to the Council of the London Borough of
Bromley, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs
with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.
Chris Forrett
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.